Hacker News

The people who know better should also know that tech social media was flooded with people not knowing what they were talking about mentioning manifest versions.

It wouldn't be the first time tech gossip rags would take something Mozilla did out of proportion to make outrage videos about that become a hit on Reddit.

When Mozilla added some weird AI thing (I think it was page summaries?) I was asked by people whose algorithm picked up this nonsense whether it'd be better for their privacy to switch back to Chrome or Edge.

Did Vivaldi? Or Brave? Will uBlock work properly with Mv3 and request blocking?

And they even have a name: userscripts! [1]

Chrome also used to natively support userscripts back in 2010 [2] but they mostly killed it off

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Userscript

[2] https://lifehacker.com/chrome-4-supports-greasemonkey-usersc...

It certainly is great to have first-party support for such a simple feature. It doesn't have to support the whole GM_ API

Can you imagine the absolute boiling rage in these comments if Firefox implemented the same kind of opt-out "crypto stuff".

Lol. That's actually pretty bad for a web browser.

People build on chromium for the same reason they build on Linux. I’d personally prefer if they built on illumos or bsd but at a certain point people would rather spend their innovation budget higher up the stack and benefit from the platform that has the most open source engineers working on it.

People online rant about Firefox all the time for adding stuff Google and Microsoft shoved into their Chromium forks a few years ago, but when they do it the response is always "well what did you expect from <x>" while when Mozilla does it, the response is "this is an outrage, I'm switching to <some browser that already has the shitty feature anyway>".

I don't think there is or ever will be a "new internet explorer". If your page works in Chrome, there's a 99% chance it'll work in Firefox and Safari. Web standards have been unified to the point painting and layout algorithms are now part of the spec. It's why Ladybird managed to get a decently compatible engine in an extremely short time frame.

With current standartization the issue of "page not working on non-Chrome browser" is non-existent. Thanks god nowadays everything (pages) work everywhere in very similar manner, I am using chrome, firefox, safary and opera and have zero problems last 5+ years. Old days are gone.

I simply have no idea why people hate on Firefox so much. I mean it, it feels like an outlet for frustration toward an org people think might listen.

Everyone has made these Brave debloat tools that basically do the same thing as their ridiculous Origin offering.

To sell for $60 a web browser that technically has all the features removed is a pretty goofy move.

Instead of turning it off, you can just make it useless: https://youtu.be/M1si1y5lvkk

If your mind goes to TLS when you read crypto, you surely do live under a rock ... in bliss.

As a developer, personally I would be worried if that wasn't my first thought when someone uses browser and crypto together :D

I don't think the parent poster is talking about Android.

Do any of them support sync ootb, selfhosted?

Brave has extensions support. You can get them from the regular chrome store for them.

Brave being led by an absolute asshole does indeed make it less palatable as a main browser to me. It's on the list, right after the crypto stuff and the full page ads on the new tab screen that are enabled by default.

It's still the best Chromelike that's easily available, but I'm not switching my default any time soon.

What exactly is your gripe with MV3?

Many people seem to treat it synonymously with "no more procedural request blocking", but that's not a thing Mozilla ever did:

> For Manifest V3 extensions, Chrome no longer supports the "webRequestBlocking" permission (except for policy-installed extensions). Instead, the "webRequest" and "webRequestAuthProvider" permissions enable you to supply credentials asynchronously. Firefox continues to support "webRequestBlocking" in Manifest V3 and provides "webRequestAuthProvider" to offer cross-browser compatibility.

The permission model also seems much more reasonable (less permissions have to be requested upfront at install time) than MV2, so I actually hope Firefox does deprecate it at some point.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/firefox/firefox-manifest-v3-adbl...

Firefox supports webRequestBlocking with MV3, so even if they fully remove support for MV2, ad blocking is still available.

I'd be genuinely curious what you could switch to that still has MV2 because, AFAIK, Firefox is the last holdout.

Brave still allows you to install uBlock & some other extensions that should technically not be supported under MV3, but they still ship it with support for those.

Just heard about Helium browser, which is just dechromium + uBlock and it's still beta.

If Raymond Hill says blocking doesnt work anymore, ill use... umm... Lynx?

>Maintaining both MV2 & MV3 support isn’t easily sustainable long term when you factor in the need to prioritize other features.

There is no feature Firefox provides that is more differentiating than ublock origin. As long as pages load and security issues are patched it is the reason to choose Firefox as a browser. What would they prioritize over it?

Why does everything have to be "actively developed"? Sometimes a program is just done. Better not touch it. I actually do downgrade packages when "actively developing" causes regressions. Not curl or anything sensitive like that, but local programs definately yes.

In case of the extension manifest, that's probably layered on top of the JS engine which does get attention and scrutiny. It's not like an API needs to be updated. If you'd always do that, nothing would ever be interoperable and we'd likely have a hard time trying to communicate.

> Maintaining both MV2 & MV3 support isn’t easily sustainable long term when you factor in the need to prioritize other features.

The feature that better adblockers need is one callback that's similar to one that's still in V3. It's not difficult to keep if it's your own codebase.

Try Zen! Firefox fork with Arc-like UX.

Tell me more, what's your setup.

I use uBlock Origin in Firefox and network ad blocker. Wondering what other options are there.

What would prevent sites from just injecting ads into their content server-side? You'll always need both element and request blocking.

I use an Android tablet with detachable keyboard and works great also with Samsung DEX if you want something more for basic multitasking and there i want the shortcuts, I actually used it a lot, before firefox switched to Fenix base, for navigating tabs, opening closing them really really smooth but then....

I have a physical keyboard for my foldable. Works great, except that keyboard shortcuts don't typically work as expected.

Could be referring to a physical keyboard attached to an iPad

Yes, I do, now on then. I started using a keyboard on handhelds with my palm m100, so I am not in the mayority.

Probably because they don't leverage cosmetic filtering yet: https://docs.rs/adblock/latest/adblock/struct.Engine.html#me...

I'd imagine that's the reason it's not enabled by default, they're not finished fully implementing it in Firefox yet.

They try to make it feel like an “us” browser, but it just comes off as a corp trying to talk cool.

You have to walk the walk too Mozilla! Saying that as a FF for years.

If he showed up in the Epstein files I'd stop using Brave. Until then, I'll keep on rolling my eyes whenever someone brings up this stuff from... 2008.

So instead you use, what, Chrome because you want to support Sundar Pichai??

Brendan Eich didn't personally write the code, and he doesn't benefit from Firefox using it. If anything this hurts him, since Firefox is catching up to an advantage of Brave without investing their own development resources.

No matter from what angle I look at this situation, your complaint makes no sense.